I tend to agree with Fr Chadwick’s commentary on the text (link, see July 18) –

I see this whole thing in simple terms. The Christian world has been torn between relevance to the world and its specific identity. Ultimately, the whole thing goes back to the Donation of Constantine and “if the salt loses its savour”.

This is a problem that is intrinsic to Christianity. If a religion is to expand and assume a missionary vision, then it must be prepared to compromise its identity and inculturate. Western Catholicism is a missionary religion and addresses itself to the world. Eastern Orthodoxy, like Judaism, is a vast “monastery” and keeps its identity by keeping the infidel out and at arm’s length. The latter vision is coherent if it considers, like Jansenism and Calvinism, that the majority of humanity is nothing more than “hell fodder”. Islam is both “missionary” and medieval hard-line, and will continue to make inroads until it falls victim of its missionary ambitions and goes – – – secular.

… The Orthodox, like the Roman Catholic traditionalists (especially the sedevacantists) have come to this out of an instinct for survival. We traditional Anglicans also to an extent, because we can only survive by our difference from secular humanism. When you look at the historical pattern, we can begin to understand. All this is to say that I understand those Greeks who have had enough of relativism and liberalism. But, where is the love and charity or the will to share the Gospel with the world as Jesus asked of his Apostles?

Veritatem facientes in caritate. Not easy…. I would even say that we all seem to have got it wrong.

69 Responses

I read this earlier today on another web site. It is a very serious document that I think demands a serious discussion. But it is rather late and warm here and having just returned from Great Vespers I think it best to wait until tomorrow or maybe even Monday. I want some time to think about this before posting anything on such an important topic.

LIVING AS i DO IN GREECE, IT IS A MATTER OF IMMENSE SADNESS AND FRUSTRATION TO ME THAT SO MANY HIGHLY PLACED PRELATES AND THEOLOGIANS OF A CHURCH I LOVE AND ADMIRE ARE PREY TO SUCH UNINTELLIGENT BIGOTRY. THE CHURCH IN GREECE NEEDS TO DEAL WITH THE KIND OF FACTIONALIST INFIGHTING WHICH LEADS TO THE PROMOTION OF A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF EXTREMIST PLACEMEN WITHIN ITS HIERARCHY TO PLACATE AN INTELECTUALLY ABJECT, FUNDAMENTALIST MINORITY.

I’ve thought about this announcement, ( and the one from the Bulgarian Orthodox Church), and have come to some tentative conclusions, or perhaps better, observations.

It seems to me that the “Confession” originates mainly from Mt. Athos, always known as a very conservative place, and representatives of a segment of the Greek Orthodox Church that supports this conservative stance.
I think that the impetus for this “Confession” is not really against “ecumenism” as it is against any integration with Western Europe via the European Union.
Greece has always had an ambivalent attitude towards Western Europe, always pointing the Greek classical heritage, yet always seeming resentful that Western Europe has taken that heritage towards a different direction.
I think that the Bulgarian declaration has the same background but with Slavic “victimhood” as part of it.

If one examines the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church;

one will see that the joint declarations have been the result of many years of theological scholarship, historical and dogmatic, done by both Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians, historians, and scholars.

The declarations have a very deep theological richness that should result in a better understanding of the similarities and differences and the possibility of reunion.

There is an interesting essay, written in 1964. ” The Paranoid Style in American Politics”, by Richard Hofstatter, that has applications here.

Conservatism that is well thought out and irenic has a valid purpose. Conservatism that edges towards the irrational, the paranoid, becomes a stumbling block to any real expression of the Truth.

Paranoid styles of thought in religion are particularly dangerous. The schisms between the churches,religious wars of Europe, the rise of the Taliban, the Sri Lanka war, are all results of this style of thinking.

I wonder why such an attack against Mount Athos? Should we not know the tree from its fruits? Mount Athos produced saints over the centuries, and even today all orthodox admit that it is one of the few places where a genuine Christian spirituality is present. I cannot say the same for the Vatican or Western Europe.

In April 1204 the crussaders sacked the “heretical” Constantinople, and in 1453 the Pope thanked God for the punishment of the heretical Greeks! Do I have to remind everyone here the numerous crimes which have been committed by the “Christian” Catholics and Protestants all over the world? Can you blame Mount Athos, or any Orthodox nation for crimes and mistakes of such magnitude?

You imply that Mount Athos suffers from conservatism and paranoia, while the Vatican created Opus Dei and the order of the Jesuits! As for those Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians, historians, and scholars, you are referring at, they seem to forget that one of the core differences between orthodoxy and catholicism is the issue of uncreated vs created energies of God. I believe that orthodox monks in Mount Athos today ! can see with their own eyes the uncreated light, something that a catholic cannot admit. So even if we agree in everything else (which is going to be a mistake) still how can anyone reconciliate such a deep theological chasm? Should I as an orthodox forget what Great Photius and Saint Gregory Palamas said? and accept what the Popes imposed just because a group of theologians issued some declarations???

And all this in the name of love? This is ridiculous. Attempts to unite the churches took place in the past and failed. Ecumenism will fail as well.

“We might also point out that the “icon” was “written” by a self-styled “Orthodox archbishop” who does not hold communion with any recognized Orthodox Church.”

O dear, I think I know who it is, too. And I’m thinking he probably formed his own “jurisdiction”.

As an Orthodox Christian, I believe the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by our Savior. But how do I communicate that truth? Should I view all who had a hand in my formation-my prayerful Baptist uncle (+RIP), an Anglican monk, and a good Roman Catholic friend who introduced me to the “mysterium tremendum et fascinans” open to us through the Tridentine Mass, to name a few-as a heretical mass of undifferentiated darkness?

I must admit, I have been tempted towards this position in the past. What pulls me back is that vision of my Baptist uncle reading Scripture and praying on his knees for all whom he loved in this life, and for those in need. This was a man who thought it nothing at all to feed the hungry and clothe the naked wherever he found them, and he always did it in the name of Christ. I daresay, he will be more likely to make it to the Kingdom before I do.

Does this mean I agree with the Baptist theology and teaching he held to in this life? No. But it does mean that I will forever admire him for faithfully adhering to the truth he did possess, albeit incomplete, and with which he did so much-much more than I, who have the fullness of the truth, do. Kyrie eleison!

Some of the most loving and generous Christians I have met are Protestants. Truthfully, not being an Orthodox Christian myself yet, it is with Protestant Evangelicals that I pray, visit, and fellowship.

However, I cannot but help be increasingly and intensely drawn to the Eastern Orthodox faith. It offers life and healing to the weary soul in a way that I have never known as a Protestant.

Yet who I am, my love for Christ, my love for the Holy Scriptures, my desire to lay God’s word in my heart that I might not sin against Him, my need and desire to fellowship with other Christians, my longing to relieve the sufferings of others, all these were implanted in me as a Protestant Evangelical Christian.

May we each grow ever closer to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as we journey in this land and until we enter our eternal rest where we shall see Him face to face.

I think what I was trying to do is illustrate exactly what Professor Peter Bouteneff was trying to show. I wrote on this post, but in fact repsonding to a later post, sinc eI think both are very much linked. I think it quite possible to live out one’s life believing in the claim that the Orthodox Church is the one true Church established by Christ, and yet have an “eirenic” relationship with Roman Catholics and Evangelicals. I think the painter of this icon, and the authors of the Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism, may have right positions, but the manner in which they seek to apply them, and the way they force me to take an adversarial posture against people who have formed me-Evangelicals, Anglicans and Catholics-is not helpful. Both sides of this coin-what unites us AND what divides is-are important in the emerging conversation, and this is a conversation we MUST have. Given the growing threat of militant secularism and materialism that seek to plague us, we cannot afford not to talk to each other.

I think my hero, His Grace Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, has the right idea, one which accepts the hard facts about what separates us, and yet eirenic enough to hang out with Cardinals Christoph Schonborn and Walter Kaspar, talking about the mystical theology and hymnody of St. Isaac the Syrian, and about the common moral challenges faced by our two communions.

Eirenikon is back!!!??? I had no idea. Why didn’t someone tell me? ;-)

Irenaeus, are you our old friend Eirenikon? (I am so confused.)

Please tell me you are not that Irenaeus person who runs the Catholidoxies blog. (UGH!!!) I assume you’re not–I assume you are our beloved Eirenikon–but I just want to make sure before I commit to posting here.

OK, at another forum, this anti-ecumenism screed has raised the question: Who speaks for Orthodoxy on this question? And how can outsiders know what to believe? It’s very confusing!

Is this anti-ecumenical document the official Orthodox stance re ecumenism and non-Orthodox? Or is Professor Boutanieff’s response the official EO position? Or is there yet a Third Way that represents the Orthodox position?

If “official position” sounds too cataphatic and (gasp, horrors) Western…then OK, how about a consensus? Is there an Orthodox consensus on this question?

If there isn’t, then ISTM you have gone beyond apophasis to total, utter confusion. And on a pretty darned important question, too — a question that could potentially involve people’s salvation.

“God is not the author of confusion.” “If the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will come to the battle?”

So, how about it, my Orthodox brethren? What is THE Orthodox position (or consensus ;)) on ecumenism and on non-Orthodox? Inquiring minds want to know. :D

Diiane,
Nice to hear from you again. With respect to your question, the “official position” on ecumenism is whatever the Holy Synod of your local church says it is. Thus if you are under the Ecumenical Patriarchate or the Russian Church then the official position is that we are talking to the Roman Catholic Church and various other groups (the Russians are a bit more picky about who they will talk to than the EP). If on the other hand you are a member of the Bulgarian Church then the “official position” is that ecumenical dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church has not proven fruitful and they are moving on.

Since “ecumenism” is not an issue of doctrine per se (as long as one does not deny the Orthodox Faith) there is plenty of room for diversity of opinion. The document in question is in fact just that. It is a statement of opinion from the more conservative wing of the (mostly) Greek Church. As for a “consensus” in the broader Church, if I were asked to guess I would say that this document represents a minority opinion. But it would be a mistake to dismiss its significance. While the tone is IMO unnecessarily harsh and there are factual errors with respect to its characterization of non-Orthodox beliefs, it makes some important points. Further, it almost certainly represents the general train of thought among the monks of Mt. Athos as well as a not insignificant number of theologians and hierarchs.

If you would like to peruse an “official” statement on this subject from the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church you can find it here…

Diane,
I think you are confusing ecumenism with the issue of whether one is in or out of the Church. I don’t see that, at least from the our POV. The debate over ecumenism is essentially a discussion about dialogue and the nature of our relationship with people that we are generally agreed are not in the Church. This topic is, up to a point, a matter for legitimate debate. All of that said there are limits which are generally understood and recognized (no inter-communion etc.). The canons of the Church provide us with guidance on this subject.

The question is how narrowly do we choose to interpret those canons, especially the ones which are pretty hard nosed in the literal reading with respect to the non-Orthodox. Bear in mind the Orthodox Church has dogmatized very little on this subject. We are not a Church that spends a lot of time worrying about what goes on in other confessions. Orthodoxy is mostly agnostic on the matter. We worry about what goes on inside the Church.

John, I don’t think I’m confusing anything. The two issues are inextricably intertwined. After all, the purpose of ecumenism is unity (a la John 17, “that they all may be one”). The purpose is not having nice talks over tea and cake, worthwhile as that may be.

That is why the Vatican II “Decree on Ecumenism” explicitly addressed the question of how non-Catholics are related to the Catholic Church and how that impinges on salvation.

After a bodacious workweek (we are on “summer hours” — four 10-hour-plus days with Fridays off), I am too brain-dead to address this question as fully as it deserves. I will try to explore your links later. Right now I am going to go play on Facebook. :)

Diane,
Your statement is accurate but it must be qualified. From the Orthodox perspective “unity” is obtained by becoming Orthodox. Therein lies a major point of contention within the Church. There are more than a few who fear that this important point has been reduced to an afterthought if not actually abandoned in the modern manifestation of ecumenism. And if I may say so, as a matter of opinion I would agree with that concern. That said how we choose to communicate with the non-Orthodox is not dogmatic from our perspective. But there are a variety of church canons which address the matter. Although not dogmatic per se, they carry great weight as a matter of church discipline.

Greetings. Luke here. To give you some perspective on Diane’s pointed questions, she hit me with the same line at another forum. Here is the exchange:

Diane: Will the real spokesmen for the Orthodox attitude toward the Rest of Us please stand up?

Me: Your presuppositions are incorrect. There is no spokesman for the Orthodox attitude toward you. Nor is there an Orthodox attitude toward you. There are only the attitudes of different Orthodox people.

Diane: These are very sincere questions. This extreme apophasis strikes me as problematical — not to mention unScriptural and unpatristic. It also confuses the heck out of me. It’s as if EOxy–at least in its Internet / Convert form — has gone so far East that it’s functionally Zen. And I don’t see how that squares with Scripture. Sorry!

BTW, there’s a discussion of the anti-ecumenical statement over at Eirenikon. The Convert Kool-Aid Drinkers are out in force, but saner perspectives are represented as well:

Me: There’s no “apophasis” to it. The idea that there must be a defined, official attitude of one Church toward another is ridiculous. For us, this kind of ecclesiology, rather, ethos, would be a problem.

If what you suggest were valid, what we would do, like with the Church’s conciliar creedal statements, is to define all non-Orthodox as heretics. I know you wouldn’t like that.

Diane: How can you say that? After all, no one speaks for Orthodoxy.

So you see, there’s no real interest in understanding the Orthodox way in this cross-examination. The end result is a statement such that, “Since there is no official Orthodox attitude toward other churches, no one speaks for Orthodoxy. Therefore one can’t really know anything about Orthodoxy.

LOL, Wayne / Loukas: If I wanted to stoop to your level, I would love to let the more irenical folks here know what they’re dealing with in *you.* But as Auntie Em says in The Wizard of Oz, “Being a Christian woman, I can’t.”

I love the way you claim to read my mind, however. Not to mention your malicious out-of-context quotations. (E.g., “How can you say that? After all, no one speaks for Orthodoxy” was a JOKE — quoting your own words batch atcha — but only the full original context would illustrate that. So, you conveniently left that out.)

Over at OCANews.org, someone recently quoted Montaigne as saying that super-spiritual thoughts / words seem to go together with subterranean deeds. For all your protestations of more-spiritual-than-thou piety–and your frequently stunningly Pharisaical accusations–I have never, ever, during all my years of knowing you, seen you evince one scintilla of Christian charity. Ever.

Sorry for taking Loukas’s ad-hom bait, Eirenikon. But suffice it to say I don’t find it pleasant being trashed by this (deleted).

Mark (way up above): I can’t decide whether your comment is the funniest or the saddest I’ve ever read here on this blog. maybe a bit of both.

Opus Dei and the Jesuits? (shudder, shudder) No true Christianity in the Vatican? Is this a Chick tract translated into Orthodoxese? And maybe crossed with a Dan Brown novel?

I personally apologize for 1204, BTW. At the same time, I would like to respectfully remind you that it happened more than 800 years ago. Is there no statute of limitations on historical grievances? Even after 800 years?

Heck, as an Irish-Italian-American, I gotta say: My Italian side has forgiven the Austro-Hungarians, and my Irish side has even almost kinda-sorta forgiven the English…. ;)

You are looking for the “official” position from the church “institution”? Right?

There are “official” stands taken by each Holy Synod of each Church and you can find them on their web sites or other places on the web.

But, if you think this is also the essential Orthodox position on the matter of ecumenism, you are mistaken. I make a distinction between “official” and “essential” because the former can and has many times differed from the later on such vital issues facing the church throughout history.

Take the heresy of iconoclasm. For over a century the “official” positions of the patriarchates and holy synods were (most of the time) in favor of the idea/heresy. But, the essential belief of the church, as expressed in the blood and witness of countless faithful – especially the monks, many of whom were exiled or mamed or martyred for their faith – was against the “official” position.

The fact that we put a stress on “officialdom” and we don’t ask what the SAINTS of the day have to say is sad but understandable. But, in hearing the words of the Saints you will receive the mind of the Church, the mind of Christ, and the diachronic stance of the Church. And, the Saints of our day HAVE spoken about ecumenism and about the departures of those orthodox ecumenists from the essential Orthodox teaching – even if they have the covering of “officialdom”.

Are you interested in learning what the Saints have to say? If so, you will also learn what the Church has to say and what She believes.

There is not a single Catholic doctrine the essence of which cannot be found reflected in the writings of some early saint recognized by Orthodoxy. You sidestep this issue by excluding from consideration or explaining away the views of the saints in question until you are reduced to a saintly rump who appear to say what you want them to say. You then point to this saintly “consensus” and say “Aha! Behold the Orthodox faith.”

Such methodology is reductionist, circular, and hardly compelling apologetics.

I am not aware of any Saint of the Church who held that the Pope of Rome was infallible (as the Vatican II council stated it and understands it).

I am not aware of any Saint of the Church who taught the the grace of God is created or is also created.

I am not aware of any Saint of the Church who taught that the Mother of God was immaculately conceived (that is, without inheriting the sin or effects of the sin of Adam) as this is taught and understood by the Vatican councils and the Pope.

I am not aware of the any saint who embraced or would embrace (if he were alive today, as based on his teachings) the experiences and theology of the “charismatic movement”, as the Pope has embraced and blessed and allowed to flourish in his church.

As for the filioque, and for that matter also the above teachings (if there will be found a saint who taught them), the CONSENSUS of the Fathers does not support it. There may be saints who have held it – there are a few, I know, in the West – but that does not mean it was embraced by the Church as a whole, or expresses the consensus of the Fathers. In fact, it is a historical fact that the addition of the filioque was condemned by the Church in council, repeatedly – both before and after the addition in Rome in the 11th century.

So, this should answer your thought:

“There is not a single Catholic doctrine the essence of which cannot be found reflected in the writings of some early saint recognized by Orthodoxy.”

And, I never said ONE SAINT taught it and therefore it is the teaching of the church. But that the Saints – the consensus of the Saints – taught it, and therefore it is the teaching of the Church. And, of course, first and foremost we begin with the Saints in Council, in Councils recognized later as Oecumenical. But, in lew of such a council, or until such a council clarifies the matter, we look to the Saints who have dealt with a matter – like ecumenism – as to the mind of the Church. The administrative organization of the church is not sufficient in giving us the final word, but rather can – and often has – been in error.

What is “reductionist and circular” about this? Forgive me, but I don’t follow your line of reasoning.

By the way, are you familiar with Saint Vincent of Lerins teaching about the consensus patrum? Do you not agree with it – even if it is not 100% adequate?

Here are a few links of interest with regard to Saint Vincent and a bit on Saint Vincent’s teaching:

^ St. Vincent of Lerins, wrote in his Commonitoria (434 AD), “[I]n the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all” (Chap. XXIII, §§ 54–59).

From the page of Fr. Gregory Rogers, convert to Orthodoxy:

In his Communitory, he cites three criteria for determining whether a doctrine is in keeping with the truth of the gospel. They are: a) universality: has this doctrine been believed everywhere in the Christian world and in every time by all, or almost all, of the recognised teachers of the Church?; b) antiquity: can this doctrine be found, at least in seed form, in the teachings of the Apostles, and maintained by the Fathers of the Church?; and c) consensus: has this doctrine been held by an ecumenical council, or by the broad consensus of the Fathers of the Church?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“When an error is found in one corner of the Church, then the first test, universitas, quod ubique, is an unanswerable refutation, nor is there any need to examine further (iii, 7, 8). But if an error attacks the whole Church, then antiquitas, quod semper is to be appealed to, that is, a consensus existing before the novelty arose. Still, in the previous period one or two teachers, even men of great fame, may have erred. Then we betake ourselves to quod ab omnibus, consensio, to the many against the few (if possible to a general council; if not, to an examination of writings).”

I don’t propose to enter into a point by point rebuttal regarding Catholic beliefs. This has already been done many times on this site. As such, responding yet again to the standard litany of the points at issue that fails to even engage the well-worn Catholic counter arguments is an exercise in futility.

What I want to focus on specifically is why your appeal to the saints is dead-on-arrival as an authoritative epistemological tool from a Catholic perspective (and logically from an Orthodox one as well) will not settle anything. It is not because the saints are unworthy of study and veneration, or that they haven’t served to shape the shape in which Catholics and Orthodox have received their faith. Indeed, patristic studies (which is essentially a study of saintly writings) *is* an essential epistemological tool.

Just as in the case of scriptural studies, however, and for largely the same reason, the individual Christian cannot rely on a private discernment of the teaching of the saints that is not informed and guided by the living magisterium. Neither Scripture nor the Fathers are perspicuous and self-explanatory. In the same way that Catholics reject sola scriptura, they would be even more disposed to dismiss soli patris. At least Scripture is inspired.

How can you be sure you are reading the saint correctly, that he means the same thing expressed in different words by this other saint, that the teaching he condemns is the same as the one you ascribe to others? Who canonized this particular saint and on what grounds? How does one distinguish between a saint’s private views and what he considers received teaching binding on all the faithful?

This Athonite temper that involves running away from the living episcopate tasked by Christ and the apostles to teach the faith infallibly, and seeking answers instead from a selective reading of the saints may work for you, but cannot serve to convince anyone not already predisposed to see things your way. If you would engage Catholics, you must meet them half way on shared epistemological ground.

<i.Just as in the case of scriptural studies, however, and for largely the same reason, the individual Christian cannot rely on a private discernment of the teaching of the saints that is not informed and guided by the living magisterium.

Excellent point!! As you say, there is no Sola Traditio. Tradition does not interpret itself any more than Scripture does. That’s why we need the oft-invoked “three-legged stool” of Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium.

I think part of the “problem” that Michael has with Mr. Dimitriadis is that perhaps Mr. Dimitriadis has been influenced by the writings of the late Fr. John Romanides.

Fr. Romanides is quite influential among some Orthodox because of his rather polemical attacks on Western Christianity, ( attributing its divergence from the Orthodox East to the influence of Augustine and a subsequent Franco-Germanic break from the East), and also attacks on the authority of the Orthodox hiearchy, stressing that true Orthodoxy is to be found among the “saints” and not in the common magisterium of the Church.

From Logismoi;

Yannaras concludes by stating, ‘Before resigning his university chair in 1982, he taught a peculiar kind of neo-moralism, identifying the priesthood solely with a spiritual state leading to the vision of God, and disputing the ecclesiological validity of the contemporary Orthodox Church’

But, for the Orthodox the “living magisterium” is just what I have been saying: the saints of our day.

You’ll say, but who says they are saints, if they are still living, right? The people of God, the conscience of the faithful, the “information” provided by the Holy Spirit to the hierarchy as to who is speaking for Orthodoxy, who is following the Holy Fathers. Isn’t that what happened to St. Mark of Ephesus? Isn’t that they way the faithful responded – the pleoroma of the Church? Why didn’t the “living magisterium” – the hierarchs who signed the union at Florence – win the day? Why didn’t it all boil down to what they were saying was the teaching of the Fathers, of the Church – as you are supposing it to be. For, when you say “living magisterium” you must mean the present day hierarchy, and for you, the pope, right?

One can go back into church history and see again and again that the hierarchy of the day – ex. iconoclasm – DID NOT correctly interpret the Holy Scriptures, Holy Tradition, and the concensus patrum. So, who did? Who was the “kanona pisteos”? The Saints of the Day. The monk martyrs, the confessors of the faith – i.e. the saints – were the final word on Orthodoxy. NOT THE “LIVING MAGISTERIUM”.

Your approach is over-logical and isn’t proven by the life of the Church – the Orthodox Church, that is.

<>

How can you be sure that the living episcopate or the pope and those with him are interpreting things correctly? Only by TRUSTING him, by investing trust in the institution – the chair. But, for the Orthodox this is heresy, and down right foolishness. For without LIFE, experience, of the Divine, without proof by the signs of holiness seen in the lives of Apostles, Fathers, Saints, no chair, no institution – neither vatican nor patriarchate – will give one any assurance of anything, let alone that he “rightly divides the word of truth.”

THERE IS NOT ASSURANCE – logically, rationally. Only experientially. A saint recognizes a saint, a faithful one knows who is faithful. Circular reasoning? So be it. That is the experience of the Church, for which is need not give an apology, nor logical proofs. The Saint judges all and is judged by no one.

<>

If you lived in the time of the iconoclasts and you saw the monks being matryed with the consent of heretical bishops, you – following your reasoning – would have been with the heretics. For, certainly, in that day – and many another time in church history – the monks were not following the bad example of the hierarchs. Your reasoning is fine in “normal times”. But, then again, when was there ever a “normal time” in the church? We’ve marched from one storm of heresy to another. Only now they call the heretics “divided christians”, so it seems we aren’t in times akin to the ancient church. But, there is nothing new under the sun – in this sense, anyway.

“A Selected reading”? I have asked you repeatedly to show me SAINTS who teach otherwise, and you have not. Perhaps you are reading selectively.

But, more to the point: finding truth is not done in the way and on the level you are seeking it. . . But, that is another discussion altogether for another time. . .

Panagiotis
Iconoclasm and heretical bishops,yes. Where did the bishop of Rome stand on the issue?

What you are apparently unable to see is the circularity of your argument. Who recognises the saints and declares their sanctity? THe People of God. Who are the people of God? The people who agree with you, and recognize the saints you recognize. The ones who don’t (the majority of Christians) are not members of the People of God, and their saints are pseudo-saints. Q.E.D.

ANS. So….I believe the Orthodox Church is the Church, the One and Only, and made up of the people of God. And you have a problem with that? But, isn’t that what it means to be an Orthodox Christian? What you’d like me to do is deny my faith in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church? To embrace the very new ecumenist-inspired ecclesiology – an ecclesiology, mind you, that not even those outside of the Church accepted a few decades ago, before Vatican II?

The Faith of the Church is a matter…of the Church.
The Saints of the Church is a matter…of the Church.
Either you or I embrace it or we do not. We can’t alter it. Otherwise, it is not the diachronic continuation of the Incarnation and Revelation of the Logos of God but a man-made religion.

<>

ANS. You have succumbed to relativism and trust your logic more than the witness of the Church. I can’t do that. I believe what the Church teaches and accept what She accepts. You don’t have a problem with me, but with the Orthodox Church, for the ecclesiology you reject as exclusivist and narrow (the narrow path?) is that which has been repeatedly expressed by Orthodoxy – in, for instance, the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs in 1895 and earlier, in mid-18th century. And, this is the diachronic witness of the Church’s Saints. You might not like what these Saints have to say (St. Mark of Ephesus, St. Paisios Velichovsky, St. Gregory Palamas, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, etc. etc.), but you can’t seriously fault me for believing and accepting it and being a faithful member of the Orthodox Church.

Yes, the Orthodox Church does not see the “saints” of heterodox bodies as the Saints of the Church. She does not look to them for guidance, nor accept their words as God-inspired. Yes, you are correct.

But, that is not MY idea or belief, but the conviction of the Orthodox Church. Again, your problem is not with me, but with the Orthodox Church.

Panagiotis may be giving a perfectly good explanation for why and what he believes, but I am not quite sure why he thinks his methodology should be of particular use to others who can make similar truth claims based on sanctity for their own traditions. Do saints, miracles and holiness only exist in Orthodoxy?

I have to admit I have never read anything but short quotations from Romanides. Unless these are highly unrepresentative of his work, and unless his views have been severely misrepresented by his followers, I really don’t see how his reasoning, at least with respect to the nature of truth claims and the locus of authority within the Church, can appeal to more than a tiny minority even within Orthodoxy.

Specifically, it seems that Romanides was faced with the problem of having to exclude Rome and the West from his ecclesiology. In doing so, he was confronted with the fact that key Orthodox bishops had approved Lyons and Florence, and that the Eastern episcopate had appeared to have submitted overwhelmingly and surprisingly meekly to heresy under imperial pressure during the iconoclast controversy. The main holdouts for orthodoxy in the East were perceived to be the monks. Hence if you are going to dismiss the West, it follows that by virtue of their holiness and orthodoxy consistency, ultimate doctrinal authority must lie with the monastic order.

The problem with this rationale is that it is completely at odds with the patristic and scriptural understanding which places teaching authority squarely with the bishops in clear and explicitly institutional terms. Furthermore these epistemological contortions are entirely unnecessary. If one does not follow this anti-Western bias, there is no need to seek an alternative doctrinal authority. Prior to the iconoclast controversy, the majority of the bishops (and orthodox Christians) were in the West and remained solidly behind Rome’s consistent, vocal and forceful opposition to iconoclasm. Doctrinal authority lay, as it had since the fall of Jerusalem, in the episcopate *as a whole* in union with Rome, galling as this seems to have appeared for the anti-Western temper in the East.

With respect to Lyons and Florence, there is no evidence that the majority of Eastern bishops ever consented, hence there is no reason for Orthodoxy who oppose the reunoin councils to jettison the traditional patristic understanding. I frankly cannot see any fundamental difference in type between the epistemology Panagiotis seems to be pushing and that offered by the Pentecostals he purports to despise: truth must lie with A because those advocating A are so demonstrably holy and filled with the Spirit.

I frankly cannot see any fundamental difference in type between the epistemology Panagiotis seems to be pushing and that offered by the Pentecostals he purports to despise: truth must lie with A because those advocating A are so demonstrably holy and filled with the Spirit.

1) all five sees were together in accepting the heresy of monothellism in the 6th-7th century in a desperate attempt to unite with the ancient oriental churches.
2) what You said about iconoclasm goes for the other world-synods as well.
3) the west wasn’t too ‘high’ on icons (whether it’s Elvira, Gregory the Great, or the Frankfurt councils under Carol the Great).

Perhaps you can’t see the difference between the two epistemologies because you haven’t an experience of the one and have accepted that the other is legitimate (within and under Rome, that is)?

Claims of holiness exist in other religions, too. But that doesn’t stop us from saying that only Christ and His Revelation of God, as God, is true. One cannot convince on level of argumentation, anyway, and it is surprising that you think I am trying to “convince” you of the truth of Orthodoxy by way of rational dialectic. Encountering the living God in the Church in a personal way, in the heart of man, that is the way one becomes Orthodox and enters the Church. Books can help. Theological argument can help. Historical study can help. But, in themselves they cannot offer conversion, any more than learning ABOUT someone can supplant meeting him and speaking face to face with him. And, by the way, this is why the methodology used in ecumenism is not only mistaken, but even diabolical. For, although compromise and confusion can and often does happen when one engages endlessly in dialogue on the horizontal plane, rationally (only), conversion does not.

If there is any hope of one becoming Orthodox it is because they are thirsting for God and in their depths come to realize the fullness of Revelation is missing where they are and they set out on the quest, in faith and hope. Perhaps through such discussions, one can begin to question their beliefs, but I doubt that will flower into anything more without personal experience and repentance.

You speak of Lyon and Florence, but, in fact, the experience of the Church and of her gnosiology being based firstly on experience and not only the institution is garnered from nearly all of its history and especially its battle with heresy. And that history, that experience in battle, is not at all limited to two false union councils.

You wrote:

it seems that Romanides was faced with the problem of having to exclude Rome and the West from his ecclesiology

What Orthodox sources have you been reading? For whom is this a “problem”? Is there any serious Orthodox dogmatician that doesn’t exclude Rome and the West (after the schism) from “his” ecclesiology? I mean, the greatest teachers of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology in the 20th century – St. Justin Popovich, Fr. Staniloae and Fr. Michael Pomazonsky (one could add Fr. Florovsky, too, since for his there was “only the Una Sancta” and by this he meant the Orthodox Church) – all taught that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was the Orthodox Church and that the “Roman Catholic Church” was schismatic and held the heresy of the filioque.

You wrote:

the Eastern episcopate had appeared to have submitted overwhelmingly and surprisingly meekly to heresy under imperial pressure during the iconoclast controversy

Why is this a problem? Why do you think this presents a problem for the Orthodox? I mean, isn’t this what I have been saying all along? But, even more, for us the Church was not limited to the East then nor is it identified with any geographical area ever. We certainly claim every Orthodox Pope of Rome as our own and there is no problem with that. The problem arises when he arrogates a permenant “no-fault” clause and claims that the “chair” he sits in cannot err, etc. etc. (By the way, if the Pope was under Imperial authority he might have submitted, too, just as he later did to the Franks.)

You wrote:

the patristic witness…places teaching authority squarely with the bishops in clear and explicitly institutional terms…

What if the bishops bow their knee to the powers of the world and don’t confess the faith? In fact, it has been, for the most part, the clergy, and especially the bishops who have erred, who have introduced heresy. And, until a time came when the Orthodox faith was restored, the “institutional” “guarantee” was not in place. THAT IS MY POINT. At the end of the day, you are looking for safety in the institution, in the “chair”, wanting a logical, full-proof explanation for it all. But, church history shows that it doesn’t work that way. It was the holy lives of certain saints that saved the day again and again – not any institutional guarantee.

That you look down your noses at the easterners who fell to the iconoclasts and claim the Pope as being without error and impossible to err, is a sure sign of the kind of pride that eventually led to the fall of the papacy into delusion – that is, anyway, what the Orthodox Church holds and has said again and again for 1000 years. See the Eastern Patriarchal encyclical of 1895.

We heed the Saints, Diane, not ONLY for their miracle working or divine gifts, but first and foremost for their whole life in Christ, a major part of which is their confession of faith in word and deed. The fact the Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco’s body in San Francisco is incorrupt is a REFLECTION of/a witness to his holy and God-pleasing life – a life which the Church knows and confirms. That God has also given them gifts is only a confirmation of the blessedness of their life. If, however, they do not confess that which the Saints before them have, that which the Church has held everywhere, always and by all, then their miracles are, well, unhelpful, unconvincing, suspect. In any case, they are neither here nor there for the Church, for even the demons tremble and believe and even if an angel came down from heaven with another gospel working miracles we are told by the Apostle not to accept it.

In short, Diane, it is BOTH-AND. Always, BOTH-AND.

P.S. In Greece, we have many cases of incorrupt bodies – a very few of which are signs of holiness. Most are signs of sin. Their bodies do not decompose unless a priest reads a prayer over the remains asking God to forgive the person, usually for blasphemy or cursing a priest, etc.

Panagiotis: With all due respect, if you suggest that Saint Bernadette’s incorrupt body is NOT a reflection of her heroically saintly life, then you are (pardon me) showing your ignorance. I would venture to suggest that no one posting here is worthy to unlatch Bernadette’s sandals. She was an exceedingly holy Christian woman…and that is the basis of her canonization. CFeel free to read up on her via Mr. Google. :)

BTW, I have seen photographs of the incorrupt body of Saint John of San Francisco. No offense, but it looked shriveled and dessicated, almost mummified. I am sure Saint John was a very holy man, and I am sure the Orthodox have many genuine incorruptibles. I have no problem acknowledging the presence of the miraculous among non-Catholic Christians, especially among the Orthodox. But I would be surprised to find any incorruptible, East or West, as perfectly preserved as Bernadette. And that, as I say, is a reflection of her sanctity.

You are at a disadvantage, my friend. I can appreciate sanctity in your tradition. But you cannot even allow for its existence in mine. Which means you have to twist yourself into a pretzel to avoid admitting that an obviously very holy person like Francis of Assisi or Bernadette Souvirou really was holy. Good luck with that. ;)

“all five sees were together in accepting the heresy of monothellism in the 6th-7th century in a desperate attempt to unite with the ancient oriental churches.”

This is not quite true. The evidence Honorius ever subscribed to monotheletism is weak. At best, we have vague and confused exchanges of letters between Honorius, Segrius and Cyrus about the opportuneness of various formulae. When the time came for Rome to pronounce on the Ecthesis, it answered with a clear and unambiguous NO.

“the west wasn’t too ‘high’ on icons (whether it’s Elvira, Gregory the Great, or the Frankfurt councils under Carol the Great).”

This is trivializing the seriousness of the iconoclastic dispute. It wasn’t just about the practice of venerating icons (which was and still is more established in the East). It involved a fundamental disagreement with profound implications regarding the underlying moral value of the whole material order. Unchecked, iconoclasm would have left the door open to neo-gnostic spiritualist heresies akin to those eventually pushed by Bogomils and Albigensians. It is on these grounds that the West stood solidly behind the iconodules. The reservations Charlemagne’s court had regarding Nicea II were technical and based on a flawed translation, and were, in any case, answered by Rome and not the East

“What Orthodox sources have you been reading? For whom is this a “problem”? Is there any serious Orthodox dogmatician that doesn’t exclude Rome and the West (after the schism) from “his” ecclesiology?”

My point was that Romanides’ problem seemed to be that he had to exclude Rome specifically from his *pre-schism* not just post-schism ecclesiology. Is my writing really that impenetrable?

“Why is this a problem? Why do you think this presents a problem for the Orthodox? I mean, isn’t this what I have been saying all along?”

It becomes a problem if the West’s opposition to iconoclasm doesn’t count. If the West counts, then you cannot claim that a majority of the bishops ever endorsed iconoclasm and that hence the episcopate as a whole was lost to heresy.

If, like Romanides, you dismiss Rome and the West as already lost to heresy by the mid 8th century because of some sinister conjugation of Augustinianism with a postulated “Germanic” ethos, then the potential bounds of Orthodoxy are limited to the East. As the Eastern bishops had failed to uphold Orthodoxy in 754, you must then dismiss the episcopate’s teaching authority in doctrinal matters and look for that authority elsewhere, which is what Romanides is forced to do.

“We certainly claim every Orthodox Pope of Rome as our own and there is no problem with that. The problem arises when he arrogates a permenant “no-fault” clause and claims that the “chair” he sits in cannot err, etc. etc.”

Panagiotis, read my pixels:

ROME HAS NEVER MADE ANY SUCH CLAIM!

The mere fact that you keep repeating this absurd claim ad nauseam just demonstrates that you have failed to grasp the doctrine in question and apparently have no interest in attempting to do so.

“What if the bishops bow their knee to the powers of the world and don’t confess the faith? In fact, it has been, for the most part, the clergy, and especially the bishops who have erred, who have introduced heresy. And, until a time came when the Orthodox faith was restored, the “institutional” “guarantee” was not in place. THAT IS MY POINT.”

And a good point it is. But Catholics have an answer to it. Individual bishops or, even groups of bishops might indeed slip into heresy. But the episcopate as a whole in union with the bishop of Rome will not. This is not because they are wise or holy or infallible or inerrant, but because Christ promised that he would build his Church on their witness and that, as a result, Hell would not prevail. If you divorce the sacramental authority of the episcopate from its teaching authority, you are denying Christ’s explicit plan for his Church and reducing the clergy into mere Levites.

For the record, it is not I who think Francis of Asissi does not exhibit the characteristics of a Saint, but others much holier and wiser than I. One who has actually written about it, and quite convincingly, is Fr. Seraphim Rose. He gave many examples from the life of Francis which clearly separate him from the choir of saints of the Church – actions and words which are unheard of in the Orthodox hagiography.

This Orthodox stance, it would seem, would also affect Pope Benedict XVI’s major thrust toward reuniting Orthodoxy with Catholicism. Francis represents a whole new tradition of spirituality, developed after the split between the Western and Eastern Christian churches in 1054.

But Catholics have an answer to it. Individual bishops or, even groups of bishops might indeed slip into heresy. But the episcopate as a whole in union with the bishop of Rome will not.

My answer:

I can agree that not every single bishop everywhere has ever bowed his knee to Baal/heresy. There have always been two or three who have stood. My point was not to attack the episcopate as such, but just that, without life and experience, the bishops – any bishop – can fall.

Of course, I can’t agree that there is anything “magical” about being in communion with Rome or about being Rome. That is, your qualification “in union with Rome” is wrong and unnecessary. Again, there is no guarantee in that chair or any chair in particular. And, in fact, that particular chair has fallen into numerous errors over the centuries, such that today it is very far away from the Orthodox confession of Faith, having piled error upon error. That, anyway, is the Orthodox conviction.

I appreciate your statements but I do not find them particularly illuminating nor helpful as far as the subject of interfaith dialogue is concerned. I just perceive a monologue on your part, since you do not seem to “hear” what others are writing nor even make the attempt.

I was particularly taken by your reference to St. Francis. I seem to remember various episodes and stories of Orthodox saints having visions etc;, ( I refer to St. Symeon the New Theologian whose writings are very autobiographical- indeed, they are unusual in Orthodoxy by being so frankly descriptive of “personal mystical experiences”. He not only saw but heard and recorded these experiences in magnificent poetry).

The point of dialogue is not conversion to one particular understanding but the illumination of understanding to clarify what is common and what is not common.

Your statements have clarified a certain understanding of what you perceive as Orthodoxy but not of Orthodoxy itself nor of Catholicism in its Latin and non-Latin expressions.

Could you please acknowledge, at least, that there is a commonality in faith in Christ?

If not, then all you seem to be doing is irritating others.

I apologize if I seem somewhat rude but having read your little missives I see no change from the first one you wrote.

“I may have already said this before on this blog, but I don’t like historical revisionism: Honorius was condemned, end of story.”

It’s not the end of the story unless you are uninterested in what he was condemned for. You seem to assume, on no evidence whatsover, that he was condemned for monothelitism.

Here is what the anathema actually said:

“Those whose impious dogmas we execrate, we judge that their names also shall be cast out of the holy Church of God and were cast out by him, as holding views contrary to our orthodox faith; and these we define to be subject to anathema. And in addition to these [i.e. in addition to, and so separate from, those “holdings views contrary to our orthodox faith”] we decide that Honorius also, who was pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked dogmas”.

In other words, Honorius was “condemned” (he couldn’t be excommunicated as he had been dead some 40 years) for not condemning Sergius’ letter, and not for actually being a monothelite. I am quoting the actual canons here, so can hardly be accused or “revisionism”.

Lucian, there is no “revisionism” involved. Rather, Michael was being precise and accurate. Precision and accuracy are hallmarks of the historian’s craft.

evagrius: Hear hear! And thank you!

Panagiotis: I hope you will excuse me if I do not accept Seraphim Rose as an authority on the sanctity of Saint Francis of Assisi. Blessed Seraphim was a good and holy man, but he was also an anti-Catholic crank.

No, but on the strength of the video I saw a few years ago of the Pope and the representatives of the “world’s religions” gathered in Assisi and the prayers they offered up together and the little flames the lit together and all the rest of that syncretistic abomination, I think I’ll decline. That gathering was oozing something, alright, but it wasn’t holiness, that is for sure. They said, though, that it was the “spirit of assisi”. If they were right, that is just another nail in the coffin of Francis’ holiness for me.

Evagrius,

If the Christ in the Church is the same Christ outside of the Church – that is our experience of Him in the Mysteries – then, yes, of course, we have a common faith in Christ. But, then, if that were the case, we’d be united, wouldn’t we?

[having read your little missives I see no change from the first one you wrote.]

Is that a pre-requisite here – automatic change? So, if you aren’t changing what you say, making it more palatable to the non-understanding, your not accepted in ecumenist circles? Wow. Everyone is expected to change, so no one is expected to have it right? We are not talking about my personal spiritual struggle – of which daily repentance and change is a necessity – but the UNCHANGING Truth of the Church. What is it, exactly, that I should have changed since arriving here?

And, are you implying that visions are visions are visions? That is, because St. Symeon had “visions etc.”, that means whoever has visions must also be like St. Symeon? That kind of seemed like what you were implying.

And finally, really: “I have clarified what I perceive as Orthodoxy but not actually Orthodoxy itself?” Are you a psychologist? You must know another Orthodoxy I haven’t met yet. Wouldn’t it be better to say, “your presentation of Orthodoxy isn’t what I understand it to be/isn’t my experience of Orthodoxy” and then to tell me what that is? Otherwise, it just sounds like psychobabble.

[ And in addition to these [i.e. in addition to, and so separate from, those “holdings views contrary to our orthodox faith”] we decide that Honorius also ]

“In addition to” DOES NOT MEAN “and separate from”. Quite the opposite: including the following in the preceding.

But, furthermore, it is clear that he is being condemned for holding “wicked dogmas” and following the heretic in his views. That was the understanding of the council and that is why they are condemning him.

Also, anathematizing is the same as excommunicating, so I am not sure why you make that point. Both mean that he is being separated from the Church, not longer has communion with the Church, is not of the church.

And, the point here is that he taught heresy, isn’t it. See, the chair didn’t save him. (I know, you hate that, but you also don’t get it: the chair of Peter is no guarantee, only a holy life.)

If they were right, that is just another nail in the coffin of Francis’ holiness for me.

Sigh. There is none so blind as he who will not see.

I’m sorry, but this is getting depressing.

So…on Mount Athos monks have attacked each other with crowbars, picks, and shovels (IIRC). Does that discredit Mount Athos? Does it discredit all her saints?

Panagiotis, I will say it again with feeling: You are not worthy to unlatch Saint Francis’s sandals. And if you think you have made a compelling case against his sanctity, you are kidding yourself. Seriously.

BTW, both Lucian and Panagiotis: I don’t think y’all realize it, but you are not convincing anyone. In fact, you may even be driving the more reasonable Orthodox folks who lurk hereabouts to seriously consider the claims of Rome. ;)

There has been no real dialogue, just individuals writing missives, ( mine included), that go past one another.

Mr. Dimitriadis, I resent the statement you made regarding faith in Christ. I suppose you wish to argue that only the Orthodox have faith in Christ since all others who have faith in Christ are demonically deluded. That is quite an uncharitable, unChristlike attitude.

If you read deeper into the facts of the case, you will see why your reading of the canon is incorrect. Honorius was not on record as having taught monothelitism, which is why his anathema had to be distinguished from those who had held and taught monotheletism.

Honorius was condemned based on a letter he sent Sergiusl. In the letter, he agreed to Sergius’ suggestion that for the sake of unity the Church drop both the (heretical) “one operation” and the (orthodox) “two operations” formulae. In agreeing to ban the orthodox formula, he weakened the case for the faith. But at no time can it be demonstrated that he ever argued for “one operation”.

Hence the council condemned him, not for teaching heresy, but for obstructing the fight against it, which is a serious enough charge.

Rome doesn’t claim it can’t make mistakes, and the case of Honorius clearly demonstrates that the bishop of Rome *can* err. He just doesn’t err in actually teaching heresy. While Honorius was an embarrassment, his case doesn’t engage Catholic truth claims with respect to Rome’s teaching authority.

I suspect that I am wasting my breath here as every amateur Orthodox polemicist ‘knows” in his heart that Rome claims to be infallible, that Honorius was condemned for being a monothelite, etc. no matter what evidence catholics offer. Unfortunately these two misconceptions seem to figure as unshakable articles of faith for Athonite Orthodoxy independently of any facts.

Anathema, btw, is a general ecclesiastical condemnation. Think about it. How do you deny the eucharist to someone who is already dead?

Please be aware that, from now on, I will be far more diligent about keeping comments on topic, that is, directly related to the post, and in keeping with the spirit of the blog: “to facilitate friendly, irenic and constructive online discussion” about Orthodox-Catholic ecumenism.

Comments are closed.

Prayers for Unity

O Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour, thou didst promise to abide with us always. Thou dost call all Christians to draw near and partake of Thy Body and Blood. But our sin has divided us and we have no power to partake of Thy Holy Eucharist together. We confess this our sin and we pray Thee, forgive us and help us to serve the ways of reconciliation, according to Thy Will. Kindle our hearts with the fire of the Holy Spirit. Give us the spirit of Wisdom and faith, of daring and of patience, of humility and firmness, of love and of repentance, through the prayers of the most blessed Mother of God and of all the saints. Amen. – Fr Sergius Bulgakov

O Merciful Lord Jesus, Our Savior, hear the prayers and petitions of Your unworthy sinful servants who humbly call upon You and make us all to be one in Your one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Flood our souls with Your unquenchable light. Put an end to religious disagreements, and grant that we Your disciples and Your beloved children may all worship You with a single heart and voice. Fulfill quickly, O grace-giving Lord, your promise that there shall be one flock and one Divine Shepherd of Your Church; and may we be made worthy to glorify Your Holy Name now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen. – Bl. Leonid Fedorov